John Dryden is known for his works of political satire, and “Alexander’s Feast” may have been one of them. In “Political Satire in Dryden’s ‘Alexander’s Feast,’” Bessie Proffitt argues that, while “Alexander’s Feast” presents itself as an ode for music, it is in fact a covert criticism of King William III of England (1650-1702) and his political illegitimacy.
The political situation which “Alexander’s Feast” satirizes, according to Proffitt, is as follows: William III, born Dutch Prince of Orange, married Mary II of England and ascended to the English throne by means of the Glorious Revolution (1688-1689), which deposed and exiled his Catholic predecessor James II. A Protestant, William III invaded England in 1688 for an anti-Catholic cause, and successfully established a Protestant monarchy with his wife. The Tories (a conservative political party), however, supported the succession of Mary II but not that of her Dutch husband.
Dryden, a Tory, was critical towards the rule of William III. In “Alexander’s Feast,” according to Proffitt, Dryden uses Alexander the Great and Darius to represent William III and James II, respectively. Alexander is portrayed in the poem as a man of hubris, belligerence, and illegitimacy: “[B]ehind the façade of beauty lurks the blighting shadow of bloodshed and violence, which is manifest in the account of the burning of Persepolis and is hidden in the story of Bacchus” (Proffitt 1308). The debauchery of Alexander’s celebration, as well as his brutal destruction of the Persian capital, represents the lionization of William III upon his military victories (against Louis XIV of France) and his violent ascension to the English throne. The death and improper burial of Darius, then, represent the dethronement and banishment of James II and the disruption of royal order as a result of William III's ascension. Proffitt also notes a parallel between the description of Thais as an “Eastern bride” (in the context of a conquest against Persia) and the way in which marriage with Mary II granted William III access to the English throne.
Proffitt’s observation poses fascinating questions about Dryden's poem. If “Alexander’s Feast” is in fact a satire of the English monarchy, how effective is it? How does this information about William III influence a reading of the poem’s message about war, politics, and government (“War, he sung, is toil and trouble, / Honour but an empty bubble; / Never ending, still beginning, / Fighting still, and still destroying”)?
